Yes, of course. I'm spending enough time on this stuff that I don't want my work to be
lost :)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850238#3850238
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3850238
-
Bugs item #1039754, was opened at 2004-10-04 07:50
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=1039754&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Sorry question about , elements was
wrong one (in elements SecurityInterceptor has different
package).
Sorry me bad!
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850236#3850236
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&m
Understood. "Manage" vs. detect is a good way to put it.
Is there a significant benefit of knowing the number of objects vs. just memory delta?
If you are only interested in the memory delta and not necessarily the number of
allocated objects, I suppose it is possible to use Runtime.gc around te
Yes... I agree that we might have resources that would be released in another point.
The complete version would show allocation by class and method. This way you could
decide if the memory allocated is a leak or not as the leak concept is very relative.
To decide if a memory allocation is a leak
I think Nukes is a very very important component in jboss.
So, it is also important to make nukes works in jboss 4. The reason is that
Jboss 4 provides some useful features which attract developers (like me). However,
developers like me :) want to use nukes. It is difficult to make a decision.
what I say, is that when you fix a bug in 1.1 you have to do it in head at the same
time otherwise the bug fix will be lost for future version, makes sense ?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850227#3850227
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.o
"cooper" wrote : These fixes should have been applied to head first then backported to
1.1 Well your lead Nukes guy so what you say goes but if we are aiming for a staple
1.1 branch ASAP and HEAD has a modified code base how can we catch all the bugs
quickly without targeting 1.1 by itself? Mayb
Bugs item #1006723, was opened at 2004-08-10 19:56
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loubyansky
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=1006723&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Prio
These fixes should have been applied to head first then backported to 1.1
Now you have to port them to head or they will be lost.
Maintaining several branch is not easy all the time, nevertheless it is the
responsability of the developer to do it.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.o
I agree
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850223#3850223
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3850223
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT
A simple jboss service that start/stop a timer based task.
This task fetch mails in a box through pop protocol with javamail.
Then it insert post in Nukes, it works already for jbossmail :
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jboss/nukes/jbmail/src/main/org/jboss/nukes/addons/jbmail/forumposter/
Thomas, thank you very much for the information :)
-j
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850221#3850221
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3850221
--
WS-Security is currently not supported in JBossWS. However, we do support
encryptions/authentication on the HTTP transport layer. It works in the same way as
securing an ordinary web app.
WS-Security is on the roadmap for JBossWS.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module
Bugs item #1038708, was opened at 2004-10-01 20:44
Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by tdiesler
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=1038708&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: v4.0
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Bugs item #1037044, was opened at 2004-09-29 17:58
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loubyansky
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=1037044&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v4.0
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority
Bugs item #1038696, was opened at 2004-10-01 23:30
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loubyansky
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=1038696&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Fixed
Pri
it's going to require code change - and changes that are different from what is
required to get it working in >= 3.2.4.
with nukes 2.0 actively being worked on, and upcoming plans to start porting current
nukes modules over, i am not 100% sure it is worth it to even persuing this any
longer.
Send me some information about what you are thinking about for a "pop box fetcher" and
I can look into it.
Danny
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850213#3850213
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=re
"cooper" wrote : could you apply all the relevant fixes to HEAD branch as well ?
Since HEAD has had it's own modification to the BB module I was probably going to wait
till a couple more of the bugs in 1.1 got ironed out since the fixes will be have to
be applied by hand. The diff just keeps scr
The plan is here:
http://www.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=MailServicesPlan
(The times are wildly off for the reasons mentioned above.)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850206#3850206
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb
could you apply all the relevant fixes to HEAD branch as well ?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850207#3850207
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3850207
I've commited some bug fixes that should enable both user and moderator editing and
deleting of messages.
Moderators can edit and delete any message. And for anyone else who had trouble
figuring it out, Moderators are configured from the Permissions module and not the
Forum Security Module. Use
Actually the integration will be dropped since in favor of a pop box fetcher. BTW if
anyone wants to work on this it's not hard to do
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850201#3850201
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&
Bugs item #973162, was opened at 2004-06-15 14:02
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sflexus
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=973162&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priori
Can you elaborate on this native IO feature? what does it handle specifically? file
access? network access?
thanks
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3850196#3850196
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=re
26 matches
Mail list logo
